reply to post by zyrktec
That may not be true. I work in the public sector and we often use this tactic because we try to get jobs filled before funding is lost for them
(something that happens frequently). Since the hiring process is long, this is pretty much standard procedure. I can't even tell you how many times
i've interviewed people for a job only to be told later that its not going to be filled. By having a steady hand of applicants, it makes the overall
process quicker and therefore more likely to get through.
Bill to abolish IRS introduced, page 3
reply posted on 5-2-2009 @ 03:52 PM by gottago
reply to post by Total Reality
I'd like a breakdown on the party affiliation of the representatives, first of all.
More importantly, before you all go get excited about the idea of a flat consumption tax, do a bit more thinking about what it actually does.
Its great virtues are its simplicity and its perceived "fairness." But, just how fair is it? Those who have been pushing the flat tax are overwhelmingly conservative GOP, but they do not like it for the reasons you would think they do.
A flat consumption tax--standing alone, without a mirroring tax on investment income--and you can be sure you will not hear a word about this, as they try to sell you the horse with three legs--is actually a regressive tax in sheep's clothing.
Think about it: you earn, say, $1000 per month, and almost all your income goes to buy food, clothing, gas, shelter, etc. Paying a flat tax of say 15% means that about $120-130 of your monthly budget goes to taxes and will not be offset, and you need that money desperately to live a decent life.
However, say you make $1,000,000 a year. And there are many who do. These rich people will only pay a relative pittance--perhaps 3-5% of their income--in a tax scheme based on consumption.
How much food, clothing, etc., after all, can even a rich person buy?
And you hear nothing about a similar tax on investment income--passive profit that comes simply from using all your money to make even more. No, God forbid!
This is why these "conservatives" love the flat tax. It's a scam. It throws the greatest tax burden on those who make the least, gives the rich a free ride, and sounds so, so fair.
Don't get suckered into it.
edit for clean-up
[edit on 5-2-2009 by gottago]
I'd like a breakdown on the party affiliation of the representatives, first of all.
More importantly, before you all go get excited about the idea of a flat consumption tax, do a bit more thinking about what it actually does.
Its great virtues are its simplicity and its perceived "fairness." But, just how fair is it? Those who have been pushing the flat tax are overwhelmingly conservative GOP, but they do not like it for the reasons you would think they do.
A flat consumption tax--standing alone, without a mirroring tax on investment income--and you can be sure you will not hear a word about this, as they try to sell you the horse with three legs--is actually a regressive tax in sheep's clothing.
Think about it: you earn, say, $1000 per month, and almost all your income goes to buy food, clothing, gas, shelter, etc. Paying a flat tax of say 15% means that about $120-130 of your monthly budget goes to taxes and will not be offset, and you need that money desperately to live a decent life.
However, say you make $1,000,000 a year. And there are many who do. These rich people will only pay a relative pittance--perhaps 3-5% of their income--in a tax scheme based on consumption.
How much food, clothing, etc., after all, can even a rich person buy?
And you hear nothing about a similar tax on investment income--passive profit that comes simply from using all your money to make even more. No, God forbid!
This is why these "conservatives" love the flat tax. It's a scam. It throws the greatest tax burden on those who make the least, gives the rich a free ride, and sounds so, so fair.
Don't get suckered into it.
edit for clean-up
[edit on 5-2-2009 by gottago]
reply posted on 5-2-2009 @ 04:20 PM by Rockpuck
reply to post by Total Reality
The sales tax should be a
Value Added Tax
From raw material to finished product, at each stage the price is taxed by the producer, manufacture, and buyer.
National Sales Tax should be roughly 10%, imo.
Almost all of Europe has a VAT.
No income tax should exist to coincide with this tax.
I support the proposed bill, and am pleasantly surprised at how many signed on!
The sales tax should be a
Value Added Tax
From raw material to finished product, at each stage the price is taxed by the producer, manufacture, and buyer.
National Sales Tax should be roughly 10%, imo.
Almost all of Europe has a VAT.
No income tax should exist to coincide with this tax.
I support the proposed bill, and am pleasantly surprised at how many signed on!
reply posted on 5-2-2009 @ 04:28 PM by Rockpuck
reply to post by gottago
Right, you pay for what you consume. $150 in taxes is not a bad deal. Most states already have a 5-7% sales tax anyways. Poor folks don't complain.
IMO, poor people need to pay taxes to, since they are the biggest burden on society.
Any national sales tax would be a VAT, it would have to be. Investment tax is not an Income Tax.. it's a Capital Gains Tax.
Well let's see.. one purchase of a Mercedes or a Bentley and a rich person has just paid more in taxes that year then 10 poor people paying $150 a month.
Vacations, houses, clothing, the list goes on. If you think rich people sit in their home locked the doors and count their money all day while verbally accosting poor people for their own pleasure.. congrats, you have proved your self ignorant.
Rich people consume far more, at much higher prices. I just read an article about an investment banker spending over 6million on his own birthday party (1 million just to have ron stewart play) .. now add a 10-15% tax.
Capital Gains Tax would not be taken away imo.
True because the money returned would not be enough to cover socialist welfare programs.
Which I see as a good thing.
Think about it: you earn, say, $1000 per month, and almost all your income goes to buy food, clothing, gas, shelter, etc. Paying a flat tax of say 15% means that about $120-130 of your monthly budget goes to taxes and will not be offset, and you need that money desperately to live a decent life.
Right, you pay for what you consume. $150 in taxes is not a bad deal. Most states already have a 5-7% sales tax anyways. Poor folks don't complain.
IMO, poor people need to pay taxes to, since they are the biggest burden on society.
A flat consumption tax--standing alone, without a mirroring tax on investment income--and you can be sure you will not hear a word about this, as they try to sell you the horse with three legs--is actually a regressive tax in sheep's clothing.
Any national sales tax would be a VAT, it would have to be. Investment tax is not an Income Tax.. it's a Capital Gains Tax.
However, say you make $1,000,000 a year. And there are many who do. These rich people will only pay a relative pittance--perhaps 3-5% of their income--in a tax scheme based on consumption.
How much food, clothing, etc., after all, can even a rich person buy?
Well let's see.. one purchase of a Mercedes or a Bentley and a rich person has just paid more in taxes that year then 10 poor people paying $150 a month.
Vacations, houses, clothing, the list goes on. If you think rich people sit in their home locked the doors and count their money all day while verbally accosting poor people for their own pleasure.. congrats, you have proved your self ignorant.
Rich people consume far more, at much higher prices. I just read an article about an investment banker spending over 6million on his own birthday party (1 million just to have ron stewart play) .. now add a 10-15% tax.
And you hear nothing about a similar tax on investment income--passive profit that comes simply from using all your money to make even more. No, God forbid!
Capital Gains Tax would not be taken away imo.
This is why these "conservatives" love the flat tax
True because the money returned would not be enough to cover socialist welfare programs.
Which I see as a good thing.
reply posted on 5-2-2009 @ 04:34 PM by wutone
reply to post by gottago
Lets say a person made only $10,000 a year. He has to buy food and other things that he needs. The producer of that food has to pay a tax too. The producer, in order to make money, passes down that tax and embeds it into the price of goods. Then the producer of the food has to pay accountants and other record keepers in order to figure out the complicated tax code, so the producer passes this cost down to the consumer again. Who does this hurt the most, the rich guy or the poor guy?
The current tax system is horribly unfair to the poor. Corporate taxes always get passed down to the consumer level which drives up the price of goods. Rich people can afford accountants, tax shelters, and political cover in the case of the democrats while the poor have to figure everything out on their own and if they mess up(which is very easy to do) they have to pay massive fines and interest.
There is a reason why liberals oppose any changes to the current progressive tax system where only elite liberals can skimp out on paying. They want everyone to be poor and that increases the power of the politician.
A fair tax proposes a rebate for everyone to cover the costs of essentials such as food. The poor would hardly pay anything. They would benefit more because all the hidden embedded taxes would probably make the price of goods lower in the first place. The rich would naturally pay more because they buy stuff.
Even if there was no rebate, the poor would probably pay less for goods anyways even with the added tax due to the elimination of embedded costs.
Lets say a person made only $10,000 a year. He has to buy food and other things that he needs. The producer of that food has to pay a tax too. The producer, in order to make money, passes down that tax and embeds it into the price of goods. Then the producer of the food has to pay accountants and other record keepers in order to figure out the complicated tax code, so the producer passes this cost down to the consumer again. Who does this hurt the most, the rich guy or the poor guy?
The current tax system is horribly unfair to the poor. Corporate taxes always get passed down to the consumer level which drives up the price of goods. Rich people can afford accountants, tax shelters, and political cover in the case of the democrats while the poor have to figure everything out on their own and if they mess up(which is very easy to do) they have to pay massive fines and interest.
There is a reason why liberals oppose any changes to the current progressive tax system where only elite liberals can skimp out on paying. They want everyone to be poor and that increases the power of the politician.
A fair tax proposes a rebate for everyone to cover the costs of essentials such as food. The poor would hardly pay anything. They would benefit more because all the hidden embedded taxes would probably make the price of goods lower in the first place. The rich would naturally pay more because they buy stuff.
Even if there was no rebate, the poor would probably pay less for goods anyways even with the added tax due to the elimination of embedded costs.
reply posted on 5-2-2009 @ 04:38 PM by gottago
reply to post by Rockpuck
Your twisted semantics (investment income is exactly what it is, btw) and agile, pro-rich ballet aside, it is still a regressive tax/pig with a whole lotta lipstick on it.
Just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Way to go!
Your twisted semantics (investment income is exactly what it is, btw) and agile, pro-rich ballet aside, it is still a regressive tax/pig with a whole lotta lipstick on it.
Just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Way to go!
reply posted on 5-2-2009 @ 04:47 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by admriker444
So, just don't pay our debt
You ever loaned money to someone? Do you expect them to pay you back?
You know if they did that a barrel of dollar bills would not buy a loaf of bread?
Money is not based on air. That is just a myth spread by the illiterate.
So, just don't pay our debt
You ever loaned money to someone? Do you expect them to pay you back?
You know if they did that a barrel of dollar bills would not buy a loaf of bread?
Money is not based on air. That is just a myth spread by the illiterate.
reply posted on 5-2-2009 @ 04:48 PM by Rockpuck
reply to post by gottago
Right, but since you obviously do not invest in stocks, and I do, I think I know what tax forms I am filling out.
It's called Capital Gains, 18% of profit from investments is taxed. The VAT is supposed to replace the individual Income, Social Security and Medicare income taxes. Unearned income, Capital Gains, and all Corporate Income Tax (corporate income tax is not unconstitutional) and Excise Tax would all remain in place.
I doubt the IRS could be abolished, or perhaps a new office would be opened because someone would have to over see the collection of all taxes, be it vat or otherwise.
And of course, spending on the poor would have to be cut dramatically, especially with SS, Medicare, Medicaid and all the other bs Socialist programs that are unconstitutional at the Federal Level. If you want Socialism, it must be paid at the State level. working good for California, I hear.
investment income is exactly what it is, btw
Right, but since you obviously do not invest in stocks, and I do, I think I know what tax forms I am filling out.
It's called Capital Gains, 18% of profit from investments is taxed. The VAT is supposed to replace the individual Income, Social Security and Medicare income taxes. Unearned income, Capital Gains, and all Corporate Income Tax (corporate income tax is not unconstitutional) and Excise Tax would all remain in place.
I doubt the IRS could be abolished, or perhaps a new office would be opened because someone would have to over see the collection of all taxes, be it vat or otherwise.
And of course, spending on the poor would have to be cut dramatically, especially with SS, Medicare, Medicaid and all the other bs Socialist programs that are unconstitutional at the Federal Level. If you want Socialism, it must be paid at the State level. working good for California, I hear.
reply posted on 5-2-2009 @ 05:03 PM by gottago
reply to post by Rockpuck
This is just the same simplistic, manipulative campaign--waged by the same species of political hacks who have brought us to where we are today--who cooked up the "death tax" racket.
Same analysis as in my first post applies--it was just another way of scamming the little guy so that the big fish could pocket even more millions.
And the lipstick is always the same--"Oh, we'll abolish the IRS!... Oh, it's a tax on dead people! How perverted!" Pure manipulation of the naive.
This is just the same simplistic, manipulative campaign--waged by the same species of political hacks who have brought us to where we are today--who cooked up the "death tax" racket.
Same analysis as in my first post applies--it was just another way of scamming the little guy so that the big fish could pocket even more millions.
And the lipstick is always the same--"Oh, we'll abolish the IRS!... Oh, it's a tax on dead people! How perverted!" Pure manipulation of the naive.
reply posted on 5-2-2009 @ 06:18 PM by ExistenceUnknown
Didnt see if anyone said this in the thread already but the tax code that John Linder of Georgia is proposing is called the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is
133 pages of tax code compared to our currently astounding tens of thousands of pages of tax code. I have provided a link for those who are curious
about this issue.
Rep. John Linder
Rep. John Linder
Update...Canada Couple Wins Right To Grow Vegetables On Front Lawn...Case Closed!
Posted 16 days ago with 25 member flags
Posted 16 days ago with 25 member flags
We argue about Healthcare, meanwhile, the Elephant laughs (pls read!)
Posted 13 days ago with 25 member flags
Posted 13 days ago with 25 member flags
A new country in North America? What do Canadians and Americans make of this?
Posted 9 days ago with 22 member flags
Posted 9 days ago with 22 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
NBC Correspondant: Obama Trying To Criminalize Journalism
Breaking Political News: 17 hours ago, 29 flags
Breaking Political News: 17 hours ago, 29 flags
I-5 bridge over Skagit River collapses, cars with people in water
Other Current Events: 11 hours ago, 21 flags
Other Current Events: 11 hours ago, 21 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
I-5 bridge over Skagit River collapses, cars with people in water
Other Current Events: 11 hours ago, 55 replies
Other Current Events: 11 hours ago, 55 replies
Westboro plans to picket 9 year old's funeral in Moore, OK FRIDAY, 10 A.M.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 11 hours ago, 46 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 11 hours ago, 46 replies
NBC Correspondant: Obama Trying To Criminalize Journalism
Breaking Political News: 17 hours ago, 33 replies
Breaking Political News: 17 hours ago, 33 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.005 seconds
Page processed in: 0.212 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.005 seconds
Page processed in: 0.212 seconds
